Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Sabrina said it a lot better than I did. I'll try to spell it out differently.

There is no proportianal equivalent to man-on-woman violence. Woman-on-man violence pales in comparison. Ergo, there's a problem with men. Men are too violent and commit too many crimes. Not all of us are like that, but way too many are. Women have a right to be angry about this, since they are too often victims, esp. of sexual crimes. There is a cultural of violence in this country that affects men and women, but the violence that takes place is almost exclusively a male thing. Why are guys so violent and prone to crime? It's an honest critique women can make against us. The fact that non-violent men get victimized by all this violence does not abrogate women's anger, which is what you seemed to be suggesting.

Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this.

No, you don't got this. You know who's "got this"? People who, as inviduals, say "*I* got this. I don't care who else is running for office. I don't care who's in charge today. I don't care who's got the power today. I'm challenging those people, and I intend to prevail in the coming contest between us."

You want my paycheck? You want my career prospects? Come and get them. You can have them the same way I got them. But you don't want my job. You want your job. A job which currently boils down to telling me to resign, go home, and wait for a woman to "lean in" to take my place without having to compete with me for it, and hopefully support me in spite of all the hate it's okay to feel towards me. Some job!

It's almost as if that's a lame excuse, and if you tried to sell it to a jury to get away with a crime, they wouldn't buy it. You are not a robot at the mercy of your hormones.

You asked a question about billions of people, not about me. You should expect an answer that relates to something those billions have in common, not an answer that would make sense in the context of an individual criminal trial.

It's almost as if that's a lame excuse, and if you tried to sell it to a jury to get away with a crime, they wouldn't buy it. You are not a robot at the mercy of your hormones.

You asked about the difference, and what could explain it. Well, that could explain it. An explanation is not an excuse. Your response doesn't provide any reason to doubt the offered explanation. Being offended by it won't make it not true.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Then abstinence-only sex education should work just fine. Celibate priests should pose no sexual threat to the communities they serve. Rape should be much rarer than it actually is.

Also, it's disingenuous say that men are different from women in the problem of violence, and then immediately refuse to consider possible biological causes of this difference. Are you concerned about accidentally validating the hypothesis that men and women are biologically different, and that this leads to statistical differences across a wide range of outcomes?

You can't get the highest salary levels without giving something else up, be it leisure time, time with children, lower stress, etc. Not everyone makes the choice to give these things up. We should not be surprised if there is a gender difference in the rate of who decides to.

Originally Posted by Darat

I've known (and worked for) quite a few self-made multimillionaires (Times' rich list folk) and two billionaires and they have way more leisure time, more time away from the office and a lot less stress than their underlings.

Those people aren't paid salaries. Their employees are. And that's who works the unlimited hours and gets held responsible for whatever happens to the company (or the part of it that they're in charge of).

Originally Posted by Darat

...having to pass through the ranks that actually work hell of a lot before you get to the gravy train.

That does appear to be what Ziggurat said in the original quote.

Originally Posted by Sabrina

...single moms who, while they might have had to take maternity leave, fully intend to be back to work not long after their child is born. The notion that women will get pregnant and permanently leave the workforce as a result is not really an issue any longer.

From an employer's perspective, that's more burdensome than permanent departure, not less. Someone who's not coming back can be replaced. Someone who is just leaves an unfillable hole in the crew for months at a time. A simple answer to that might be that managers should hire enough people to get by even when some are gone, but then they're paying extra people they don't really need most of the time.

Originally Posted by Sabrina

It's hardly different from someone who has to take time off for an intensive surgical procedure of some kind

"Surgery" tends to have an implicit sound of urgency and inevitability to it, but the comparison only works for elective surgery.

Do you think the fact that men are violent to each other somehow excuses the violence we do to women? Don't worry your pretty little head, darlin. We do bad things to each other too. It's all good.

How many men are raped by women each year? How many women are raped by men? And robbed, beaten, murdered, etc. by men? Men commit the vast majority of crime. Do you not see how this is a problem we men have to address? Why do we commit so many more crimes than women?

Wow, I've seen goal-post-shifting before, but this one was massive. You sent that thing off from Arrowhead Stadium to **** Ganymede.

You asked a question about billions of people, not about me. You should expect an answer that relates to something those billions have in common, not an answer that would make sense in the context of an individual criminal trial.

If we individually aren't biological automatons, then we are collectively not biological automatons. You can't have it both ways: if testosterone is not a valid reason for why person X did crime Y (and it's not- our whole justice system is predicated on the belief we're not slaves to our biologies), then testosterone is not a valid reason why persons x,y,z did crimes, a,b,c.

So if biology isn't the reason why men commit so many more crimes, what is? And if biology IS the reason, do we have a moral imperative as a society to address that particular biological problem, since the real-world consequences of crime are so horrific. In other words, if testosterone is the culprit behind say, 80%, of the "extra" crimes men commit, shouldn't society treat testosterone as a dangerous drug? Would we allow any other chemical that caused so much violence to be legally available? If lowering testosterone levels isn't feasible, then shouldn't people with that much rage-inducing stuff percolating through their veins have to be monitored carefully? Go to mandatory therapy? If you're view of men is that we are a bunch of dangerous animals, shouldn't we be kept on a short leash? Isn't that what you do with a vicious dog?

Then abstinence-only sex education should work just fine. Celibate priests should pose no sexual threat to the communities they serve. Rape should be much rarer than it actually is.

Also, it's disingenuous say that men are different from women in the problem of violence, and then immediately refuse to consider possible biological causes of this difference. Are you concerned about accidentally validating the hypothesis that men and women are biologically different, and that this leads to statistical differences across a wide range of outcomes?

If you are at the mercy of your hormones, you shouldn't be allowed out on the street. And if your hormone problem is so bad it makes you a danger to others, you should get help. Right?

Well this is the problem isn't it. Unwarranted fear. Men are more likely to be victims of random violence or violence in general. I myself was jumped in broad daylight and kicked on the ground next the a major road while my GF was beside me. They left her untouched.

So men have a higher risk of being the victims of violence, and yet it's a "women's issue" that women are more afraid than men are. Either the women have been mislead or are hyper sensitive, or perhaps the men are far too stoic if they are at greater risk but still not petrified and even buy into the myth that women are at great risk when alone at night, relative to men.

Someone gets this

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Do you think the fact that men are violent to each other somehow excuses the violence we do to women? Don't worry your pretty little head, darlin. We do bad things to each other too. It's all good.

How many men are raped by women each year? How many women are raped by men? And robbed, beaten, murdered, etc. by men? Men commit the vast majority of crime. Do you not see how this is a problem we men have to address? Why do we commit so many more crimes than women?

That is some impressive twisting

Well done

__________________I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

And yet we still have people refusing to serve individuals because of their discrimination against a minority (see the Colorado baker case). Legislation isn't always the be-all, end-all solution. We have to start teaching the next generation to treat everyone equally regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other qualification you could name. Then, and only then, will the legislation actually work unequivocally.

But in the meantime, it's a useful stopgap to ensure that at least the majority of minorities are being treated, if not perfectly fairly, at least much more fairly than they would be otherwise.

And you're creating a chicken-and-egg dichotomy by de-emphasizing legislation. Those who are empowered by cultural and governmental standards to express their racism unfettered are going to resist any attempts at education. When those people hold power, that education is never going to be done on a large scale, because it's still in the immediate self-interests of the majority to keep minorities oppressed.

It's a problem that needs multiple approaches in order to resolve: short-term mitigation through legislation, and long-term education to counteract and destroy cultural attitudes and artifacts that support and perpetuate racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice.

__________________"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

If we individually aren't biological automatons, then we are collectively not biological automatons. You can't have it both ways: if testosterone is not a valid reason for why person X did crime Y (and it's not- our whole justice system is predicated on the belief we're not slaves to our biologies), then testosterone is not a valid reason why persons x,y,z did crimes, a,b,c.

You asked why men commit more crimes (across various and diverse cultures and societies, as it happens) you did not ask for reasons which would justify those crimes in a criminal setting.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "slaves to our biologies," at any rate. Decisions take place in a specific biological organ, which is made of atoms, each of which (slavishly) obeys the laws of physics.

It's "nonsense" that we are far more violent and commit far more crimes than our female counterparts? Are you claiming that?

Who has denied this?

__________________I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

You asked why men commit more crimes (across various and diverse cultures and societies, as it happens) you did not ask for reasons which would justify those crimes in a criminal setting.

That's a fair point. There's a distinction between reasons and excuses. Biology, as a reason, is one thing. Biology, as an excuse, is another.

Here's the problem with the line of thinking that biology is the mail culprit: if biology is the reason why men are so violent but biology is not an excuse for that violence, then something must be done about it. The status quo in that kind of situation is untenable.

Quote:

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "slaves to our biologies," at any rate. Decisions take place in a specific biological organ, which is made of atoms, each of which (slavishly) obeys the laws of physics.

That is not how we think. If someone is punched in the face, someone else will be blamed for it. Not "someone" as in a collection of atoms, but "someone" as in "a person with a free will that chose to punch someone". That's how we think about each other. This is why using biology as an excuse for men's violent behavior doesn't fly.

If we individually aren't biological automatons, then we are collectively not biological automatons. You can't have it both ways: if testosterone is not a valid reason for why person X did crime Y (and it's not- our whole justice system is predicated on the belief we're not slaves to our biologies), then testosterone is not a valid reason why persons x,y,z did crimes, a,b,c.

This is a stupid argument. First off, the fact that we aren't slaves to biology doesn't mean that biology doesn't have any effect on us. Of course it does. For example, people can become more violent when under the influence of drugs such as alcohol and cocaine. We don't need to consider these as legally mitigating in order to understand that basic fact.

Second, we're talking about aggregate statistics here. And in aggregate, anything which has an influence can show up in the statistics even if that influence isn't determinative in any single case.

Third, and even more fundamentally, on what possible logical basis would you try to use our system of law in order to establish scientific facts? It doesn't work that way. We should strive to make our laws conform with scientific realities, but they may not. And we certainly cannot deduce scientific realities from what we have chosen the law to be.

Quote:

So if biology isn't the reason why men commit so many more crimes

You haven't established this.

Quote:

And if biology IS the reason, do we have a moral imperative as a society to address that particular biological problem, since the real-world consequences of crime are so horrific.

We have no moral imperative to "address" any problem where the actions used to address it are unspecified.

Quote:

In other words, if testosterone is the culprit behind say, 80%, of the "extra" crimes men commit, shouldn't society treat testosterone as a dangerous drug?

We do, actually. That's why you can't buy testosterone over the counter.

Quote:

Would we allow any other chemical that caused so much violence to be legally available?

We do. It's called alcohol.

Quote:

If lowering testosterone levels isn't feasible

It isn't, not without serious side effects.

Quote:

then shouldn't people with that much rage-inducing stuff percolating through their veins have to be monitored carefully? Go to mandatory therapy? If you're view of men is that we are a bunch of dangerous animals, shouldn't we be kept on a short leash? Isn't that what you do with a vicious dog?

Who is this "we" you keep speaking of?

Most men don't have a problem with testosterone. Some men do. And we already keep a lot of them on a short leash. It's called prison.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

If a group holds all the levers of power in a country (as men currently do), then some men are going to suffer if we carve out a spot for women at the table. I would not be opposed to a law that guaranteed women at least 40% of the seats in Congress.

If you really want this, then work on changing the rules of the Democratic Party. It's a hell of a lot easier than changing the Constitution. Simply make a rule that the Democrats will only nominate women for Congress until such time as women make up at least 40% of Congress.

I am certain that the sensitive male politicians in the Democratic party will recognize that it is their duty to step aside as a form of atonement. Think how superior they will feel to the neanderthal Republicans!

Those people aren't paid salaries. Their employees are. And that's who works the unlimited hours and gets held responsible for whatever happens to the company (or the part of it that they're in charge of).

That does appear to be what Ziggurat said in the original quote.

From an employer's perspective, that's more burdensome than permanent departure, not less. Someone who's not coming back can be replaced. Someone who is just leaves an unfillable hole in the crew for months at a time. A simple answer to that might be that managers should hire enough people to get by even when some are gone, but then they're paying extra people they don't really need most of the time.

"Surgery" tends to have an implicit sound of urgency and inevitability to it, but the comparison only works for elective surgery.

Nope they were all paid salaries, I was on the renumeration board for one company so can categorically state for that company all the top execs were salaried.

It's "nonsense" that we are far more violent and commit far more crimes than our female counterparts? Are you claiming that?

As kind of a tangent, it is, in fact, a little bit nonsense. One of the problems with the "men are violent, women are victims" meme is that so much of the time, much violence by women has been discounted or ignored.

Women committing violent crime against men has generally been treated as a joke, and male victims as contemptible, or not truly victims, by mainstream culture. Or it's been treated as justified regardless of the actual circumstances. One fact that frequently gets ignored is that women are equal with men for committing acts of domestic violence. Although women are more likely to be injured due to physical size differences, they are also more likely to use weapons, either purposed or improvised. That's why so many police jurisdictions have policies to detail both parties in a domestic abuse situation until the actual party at fault is determined. But that doesn't stop the popular perception of domestic abuse as a crime committed by a man against a woman.

Another part of the problem is that, outside of gang/organized crime-related violence, instigators of violence most often target those who they perceive are weaker than themselves and who cannot effectively defend themselves. Men who commit violent crime tend to target weaker men, and women.
Women who commit violence tend to target children, the developmentally disabled, and the elderly.

And there has long been a cultural expectation of women as passive, nurturing, and generally incapable of the kind of assertive behaviour that is stereotypically male. "Girls don't fight, only boys fight, girls talk." And there is the pervasive religious attitude of women being subservient to men, so if they do commit some sort of violent act, it's presumed to be at the behest of a man, or that they were driven to it by a man: eg. Karla Homolka.

This is especially problematic when it comes to child sexual abuse by female perpetrators, which investigations of various sorts have come to the conclusion is badly underreported, and far less likely to be believed when it is reported.

__________________"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

But those who work in such fields are as likely as their male colleagues to seek advancement and high salaries,

Are they?

Quote:

except perhaps you believe they shouldn't be recruited because they just go off and have babies instead of working long hours.

Did I say that? I said that they make the choice themselves to work fewer hours, not that someone else does, or should, impose that choice on them.

If I want to work fewer hours so that I can spend those hours in other ways, as I have done many times in my life, that doesn't seem like an intrinsically bad choice to me.

__________________"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

__________________"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

As kind of a tangent, it is, in fact, a little bit nonsense. One of the problems with the "men are violent, women are victims" meme is that so much of the time, much violence by women has been discounted or ignored.

Women committing violent crime against men has generally been treated as a joke, and male victims as contemptible, or not truly victims, by mainstream culture. Or it's been treated as justified regardless of the actual circumstances. One fact that frequently gets ignored is that women are equal with men for committing acts of domestic violence. Although women are more likely to be injured due to physical size differences, they are also more likely to use weapons, either purposed or improvised. That's why so many police jurisdictions have policies to detail both parties in a domestic abuse situation until the actual party at fault is determined. But that doesn't stop the popular perception of domestic abuse as a crime committed by a man against a woman.

Another part of the problem is that, outside of gang/organized crime-related violence, instigators of violence most often target those who they perceive are weaker than themselves and who cannot effectively defend themselves. Men who commit violent crime tend to target weaker men, and women.
Women who commit violence tend to target children, the developmentally disabled, and the elderly.

And there has long been a cultural expectation of women as passive, nurturing, and generally incapable of the kind of assertive behaviour that is stereotypically male. "Girls don't fight, only boys fight, girls talk." And there is the pervasive religious attitude of women being subservient to men, so if they do commit some sort of violent act, it's presumed to be at the behest of a man, or that they were driven to it by a man: eg. Karla Homolka.

This is especially problematic when it comes to child sexual abuse by female perpetrators, which investigations of various sorts have come to the conclusion is badly underreported, and far less likely to be believed when it is reported.

Yes proxy violence is a good point that most people haven't really considered. Women can call on their male peers to defend their honour. "if you do X my brother/father/boyfriend will make you regret it". This isn't always called on by the female, of course, but it is pretty unidirectional afaik ("my sister will beat you up" has probably never been said by any boy older than 14)

That said, many police jurisdictions rely on the opposite model: The Duluth model, which presumes male perpetrator, female victim. This is partly why men don't call the cops when they are being abused. They are more likely to be arrested than their abuser (something that if the sex-reversal were true would be touted by feminists in every single mention of the topic "violence against women").

Can you imagine what the reaction would be if a woman president had had three kids with three different men? Had bragged about sexually assaulting men? Had cheated on every husband, wrote her own doctor's note, tweetstormed about celebrities, saluted a N. Korean general, and a million other things Trump has gotten away with? Of course you can imagine it, which is why I ask the obvious question:

Do any of you think that double standard has nothing to do with gender?

Can you imagine what the reaction would be if a woman president had had three kids with three different men? Had bragged about sexually assaulting men? Had cheated on every husband, wrote her own doctor's note, tweetstormed about celebrities, saluted a N. Korean general, and a million other things Trump has gotten away with? Of course you can imagine it, which is why I ask the obvious question:

Do any of you think that double standard has nothing to do with gender?

Similar to the double standard when it comes to the attitude to things like female on male sexual assault and female teachers shagging their young male students

__________________I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Can you imagine what the reaction would be if a woman president had had three kids with three different men? Had bragged about sexually assaulting men? Had cheated on every husband, wrote her own doctor's note, tweetstormed about celebrities, saluted a N. Korean general, and a million other things Trump has gotten away with? Of course you can imagine it, which is why I ask the obvious question:

Do any of you think that double standard has nothing to do with gender?

Depends. Would this hypothetical president be a Republican or a Democrat?

As long as you don't bring your hatred to other people, you can hate whoever you want, it's only your problem. As long as you don't go all Eliot Rodger, a guy can sit around a be angry about how women have too much sex while also having not enough sex as much as he wants. Some random dude sitting around who hates the black people walking by his house, but not causing issues at work, calling 911 on them, or chasing and murdering them like George Zimmerman, isn't a problem.

Of course, this is all in theory only, since hateful people will inevitably bring their hatred to others. And it depends on whether this is pure venting (which people do), or actual, "I go out of my way to ruin lives" hatred (which is obviously a problem). This strikes me as more the former, and given how often we've seen rooms full of men deciding that women's health issues are simply not that important (or John McCain sarcastically using the phrase "women's health" in 2008 - I'm a guy and still cringed at that one), I think it's very understandable.

As long as you don't bring your hatred to other people, you can hate whoever you want, it's only your problem. As long as you don't go all Eliot Rodger, a guy can sit around a be angry about how women have too much sex while also having not enough sex as much as he wants. Some random dude sitting around who hates the black people walking by his house, but not causing issues at work, calling 911 on them, or chasing and murdering them like George Zimmerman, isn't a problem.

Of course, this is all in theory only, since hateful people will inevitably bring their hatred to others. And it depends on whether this is pure venting (which people do), or actual, "I go out of my way to ruin lives" hatred (which is obviously a problem). This strikes me as more the former, and given how often we've seen rooms full of men deciding that women's health issues are simply not that important (or John McCain sarcastically using the phrase "women's health" in 2008 - I'm a guy and still cringed at that one), I think it's very understandable.

The fact that it was published in what is ostensibly a major political newspaper suggests it is more than mere venting.

I don't think it was venting or actual hatred, but edgelord maximalism designed to garner reaction and increase attention. They probably view this as a success.

__________________As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

Well, forced quotas can't be the answer. I think Sabrina was onto something with her last post. The next generations need to be educated to see certain things differently. Once somebody's well into adulthood with a particular set of beliefs and paradigms, trying to change those paradigms is frequently a lost cause.

"First, female anger toward men is understandable; if I were a woman I would be extremely angry that I cannot just go anywhere, anytime, even in a “safe neighborhood” at night, without worrying about being attacked. I would be extremely angry that I cannot go on a date without being afraid of being raped. The whole situation of valid female fear for safety does justify anger and men should be angry for women and should get involved in making sure women are safe and their attackers punished. I am angry for women and I ought to do more for them. All men should be involved in promoting safety for women."

Just being a nice guy who doesn't mistreat women isn't enough. We have to step up and change the misogynistic culture that exists. One of the things men can do is make misogyny a deal-breaker in a friendship, if it already isn't.

I agree with this. But your words were "We men have a lot to atone for". Doing your bit for the betterment of women's lives isn't atonement. That's just common human decency IMO.

Not so much anymore. Perhaps when women were first joining the corporate workforce it might have been, but increasingly women are the breadwinners in the family, or are single moms who, while they might have had to take maternity leave, fully intend to be back to work not long after their child is born. The notion that women will get pregnant and permanently leave the workforce as a result is not really an issue any longer. Yes, women may still get pregnant and will have to take maternity leave, but it's not a permanent thing, and most companies have workarounds in place or plan well ahead to be able to deal with a prolonged absence of a worker for whatever reason. It's hardly different from someone who has to take time off for an intensive surgical procedure of some kind; they certainly intend to return to work once they're recovered, and there's no objections to that sort of thing from most sane workplaces, so why should women getting pregnant and then coming back to work be a huge issue?

Because it disrupts the business. No matter how well arranged, no matter how well organised, a key figure being out of the business for, what? At a minimum, say, three months, is going to impact on the business.

I realise it's not a happy thought or a useful one , but it is a fact.

Yes. It would be interesting if anyone has more reliably reported statistics of CEO or executives' working hours. I've seen some statistics in presentations on youtube before which were in line with those quoted in the article, but if anyone has something better to present I'd be interested.

I can see a possible bias in the reporting (maybe they are exaggerating how many hours they work), but I think it would be hard to exaggerate your way into an extra ten hours/week without deliberate dishonesty and I don't really think there's a motivation for that. It's just a survey, it's not like these numbers are taken from someone's autobiography, and I think the surveys were done in real time (rather than compiled weeks or months after the fact from memory).

__________________"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

Here's the problem with the line of thinking that biology is the mail culprit: if biology is the reason why men are so violent but biology is not an excuse for that violence, then something must be done about it. The status quo in that kind of situation is untenable.

That a problem should be addressed is certainly a valid statement. That a problem persists, however, doesn't show that it isn't being addressed. It may be that the solution to the problem has reached some equilibrium point where more of it will result in greater negative consequences.

For instance putting violent offenders in prison is a solution to the problem of violence, but it also creates it's own problems for society.

However it's possible to attack this problem from many angles and the different sets of solutions have been making improvements, lowering the rate of violence, for a very long time. They seem to be set to continue, though only through active efforts, and the problem of violence in the US seems to be worse than it should be based on some metrics.

__________________"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.